Koch Brothers Exposed in Brave New Video

by Mike Hall, May 10, 2011

For years, billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch flew under the radar as they financed right-wing campaigns and extreme conservative think tanks to overturn financial regulations, corporate rules, environmental standards, workers’ rights and the entire litany of “evils” on the radical right agenda.

But their cover was blown in a New Yorker article last year and further shredded when their connections to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) and his attack on public service workers and workers’ rights were exposed.

Now, our friends at the Brave New Foundation—the same folks who bring us Brave New Films—are making the spotlight on the Kochs even brighter with a series of new videos in their new Koch Brothers Exposed campaign.

In the first video (above) they take us to five of the Koch’s multimillion-dollar mansions around the country. Three seniors who rely on Social Security go to David’s $37 million Palm Beach, Fla., estate to ask why the Kochs want to destroy Social Security.

Pushing the intercom at the $18 million Koch South Hampton beach estate, a Brave New filmmaker asks the Kochs why they are “financing all these organizations designed to smash the American worker.”

He gets the same answer—nothing—at the luxurious $15 million Aspen, Colo., getaway when he asks why they are “spending millions of dollars to destroy American unions.”

Click here for more and you can follow the Koch Brothers Exposed on Facebook and Twitter.

NLRB Moves to Protect Workers’ Rights in Arizona

Tue. May 10, 2011

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for its illegal attempt to mandate the use of secret ballot-only union elections.

The NLRB says the Arizona law violates federal law, in place now for 76 years.

Arizona voters recently approved a state constitutional amendment requiring secret ballot elections in circumstances where federal law permits private-sector employees to express their choice of union representation.

But under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, private-sector employees have two ways to choose a union: They may vote in a secret-ballot election conducted by the NLRB, or they may persuade an employer to voluntarily recognize a union after showing majority support by signed authorization cards or other means. The NLRB says the Arizona law conflicts with federal law by stripping away workers’ rights to gain union representation via voluntary employer recognition.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution deems as invalid any state law that conflicts with federal law.

The NLRB is expected to file a second complaint against South Dakota for a similar state constitutional amendment. South Carolina and Utah have also passed similar legislation.

Complaint Against Boeing Riles Anti-Union Zealots

Tue. May 10, 2011

The recent NLRB complaint against the Boeing Company is quickly becoming a cause célèbre among right-to-work zealots who are calling for extreme measures to “reign in” the federal agency charged with protecting U.S. labor laws.

Behind a fog of misinformation, the right-wing media echo chamber is reverberating with claims that the NLRB is undertaking an “unprecedented” campaign against right-to-work states while attempting to tell a large corporation where they can and cannot locate their operations.

The actual complaint, issued by the NLRB on April 20, does not seek to have Boeing’s South Carolina facility closed, nor does it address right-to-work legislation in any state. Rather, it seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated.

In an article published in the Huffington Post, IAM General Counsel Chris Corson rejects the effort to cast the dispute as anything other than a matter of facts, evidence and the law.

“Commentators cry that this case is just a Democratic administration favoring labor. But the rights at stake in this case belong to workers in every state, regardless of their politics and even regardless of whether they are unionized,” said Corson. “Retaliation against workers for exercising protected rights is as unlawful in South Carolina as it is in Washington. The NLRB should enforce the law whenever and wherever retaliation against workers takes place.”

AFL-CIO, NNU Back New Universal Health Care Bill

by Mike Hall, May 10, 2011

Last year, when Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, it was a “historic milestone on our path toward a more just society,” says AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker, “But we also know that much work is left to be done.”

That work includes moving to a single-payer, universal health care model as called for by the AFL-CIO Convention in 2009 and today in the America Health Security Act, introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).

Speaking at a Capitol Hill press conference, Holt Baker said:

We in the labor movement have long insisted that health care is a fundamental human right and an important measure of social justice. And for more than 100 years, we have fought for universal health care coverage based on a social insurance model, an approach that has proven to be cost-effective and efficient in countries across the globe and in this country to provide health security for seniors.

Jean Ross, R.N., and co-president of National Nurses United (NNU), says the bill will “create a more just health care system.”

Providing a single standard of high-quality care for all is a priority for registered nurses who have seen their abilities to act as patient advocates made more difficult as for-profit interests control more patient care decisions.

Sanders says the fight for universal health care “is the civil rights battle of our time.”

The legislation establishes a national health care program that requires each participating state to set up and administer comprehensive health care services as an entitlement for all through a progressively financed, single-payer system, as administered by the states. Benefits emphasize primary and preventive care, and free choice of providers. Private health insurance sold by for-profit companies continues in the form of supplemental coverage only. Says McDermott:

If an insurance company’s objective is to make a profit rather than deliver health care, a patient’s best interests may not always be in the forefront of their thinking. Decisions are made by accountants and actuaries, not necessarily on the basis of what’s best for the patient.

The program will be progressively financed, including a surcharge on high-income individuals and a tax on securities and other financial transactions.

“Let’s face it,” says Sanders in a guest column in the Guardian:

until we put patients over profits, our system will not work for ordinary Americans.

N.J. Workers First in Nation to Ratify Comcast Contract

by James Parks, May 10, 2011

The 75 workers at Comcast in Fairfield, N.J., made history again last night by becoming the first Comcast worksite in the country to ratify a first contract. Last year, the workers were the first Comcast employees to form a union, voting for Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 827.

The New Jersey State AFL-CIO congratulated the workers, saying in a statement the victory:

could not have been achieved without the dedicated commitment of both IBEW 827 and their new members. We thank everyone who poured their hardest efforts and countless hours into this campaign.

By and large, working people recognize that a path to the middle class is achieved through having a voice at the workplace. The fact remains that collective bargaining is the only vehicle which allows workers to exercise that voice.

AFL-CIO Partners with Domestic Workers Alliance, National Guestworkers’ Alliance

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka signs partnership agreement with the National Domestic Workers Alliance

by James Parks, May 10, 2011

In a historic move, the AFL-CIO today signed new, separate partnership agreements with the National Domestic Workers Alliance and the National Guestworkers’ Alliance. The landmark agreements outline a framework for the groups to partner around issues of organizing, winning rights for excluded workers and building long-term relationships. The new partnership agreements kicked off the three-day Excluded Workers Congress in New York City.

The partnerships are part of the AFL-CIO’s outreach to the growing numbers of workers whose fundamental rights are not guaranteed by law and who are often excluded from safety protections and other legal protections, including the right to organize for better living standards and a voice on the job. In 2006, the AFL-CIO signed a similar agreement with workers’ centers, partnering with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON). Also in 2006, the New York Taxi Workers’ Alliance became the first workers’ center to become a member of the New York City Central Labor Council.

Members of the National Guestworkers Alliance with their new charter.

Barbara Young, a nanny and national organizer with the National Domestic Workers Alliance, said:

We are proud to fight together with our union brothers and sisters to defend and expand the right to organize, win justice for immigrants, and ensure that one day the workers that make all other work possible–cleaning and caring for children and seniors–will have rights, respect, and recognition.

“We are signing these partnership agreements because we can’t rely on the law alone if we want to fight for the inclusion of all workers,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

We have to work together and take collective action…We extend our hand to all the organizations of the Excluded Workers Congress and workers around the world who are part of this struggle in partnership and in solidarity.

”Starting today, guest workers and U.S. workers will work to transform workplaces across the United States together,” said Saket Soni of the National Guestworkers’ Alliance.

And starting today, we will work to expand the right to organize for all global workers regardless of where they were born.

NLRB's Solomon Responds to Boeing Letter As Controversy Continues Over Legal Dispute

Tue. May 10, 2011

Addressing the controversy over his authorization of an unfair labor practice complaint against Boeing Co., National Labor Relations Board Acting General Counsel Lafe E. Solomon May 9 said there was “nothing remarkable or unprecedented” about his action, which he took only after a thorough investigation and careful review by NLRB employees.

Solomon's comments accompanied the release of a written response he sent to Boeing's General Counsel J. Michael Luttig, who May 3 criticized the complaint, which alleged Boeing unlawfully transferred some production of its 787 Dreamliner airplanes from Washington state to South Carolina. In a lengthy letter to Solomon, Luttig charged the complaint rested on misstatements about Boeing's conduct “that cannot be credibly maintained under law.”

In brief response to Luttig, Solomon said he disagrees with Luttig's contentions, but believes the ”appropriate forum” to test the position of the parties “is through the development of an evidentiary record on which an administrative law judge can make a decision which can be reviewed by the Board and ultimately the Courts.”

Solomon authorized an April 20 unfair labor practice complaint alleging Boeing illegally transferred some of the planned assembly of its Dreamliners to South Carolina because employees at Boeing's Puget Sound facilities supported lawful International Association of Machinists strikes against the company (77 DLR AA-1, 4/21/11).

But Luttig argued in his letter to the acting general counsel that South Carolina workers will be handling only “new work” needed to meet “historic demand” for the jetliner, which has not yet gone into production (86 DLR A-12, 5/4/11).

Asserting that “no work—none at all—was ‘removed' or ‘transferred' from Puget Sound,” Luttig insisted that the company's creation of jobs in South Carolina has not adversely affected any union-represented employee. He argued that the NLRB complaint mischaracterized statements by Boeing officials in support of its allegation that the company's building a second assembly line in South Carolina was improperly motivated by the lawful union activity of its Puget Sound employees.

The Boeing dispute has sparked political controversy, as nineteen Republican senators told President Obama in a May 4 letter they consider the NLRB complaint against Boeing to be a “government-led act of intimidation” against employers that build manufacturing plants in right-to-work states. They vowed to block confirmation of two of Obama's nominees to the agency if the White House does not withdraw the nominations (87 DLR A-10, 5/5/11).

A House committee is also moving to investigate the Boeing case. In a May 5 letter to Solomon, Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-Minn.) and Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), chairman of the panel's Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee, expressed concern that the case “could have significant consequences for job-creators and workers. They made a formal request for documents explaining and supporting the acting general counsel's decision to issue the complaint.

Republicans Attacking All of Labor, IAM Says

Meanwhile, addressing the NLRB complaint May 9, Richard Michalski, general vice president of IAM, contended that the “right-wing” response is “raising the stakes and they're actually attacking all of labor.”

Addressing delegates to an IAM legislative conference being held in Washington, D.C., May 9-12, Michalski cited another letter sent by Republican Senators last week, this one from nine Republicans on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to Solomon, condemning the NLRB as well as the acting general counsel (85 DLR A-1, 5/3/11).

In addition, he alleged that during the investigation leading up to the issuance of the complaint, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) threatened NLRB officers and investigators, telling them that if the complaint were issued there would be “severe and economic consequences.”

Michalski said “this is a defining moment,” adding it is “an attack on all of labor. Can you image, the National Mediation Board, if you're in transportation, or the NLRB, they would be timid if they get smacked down on this thing. You'll never get a charge issued on anything because a precedent has been set. A senator …can attack us blatantly and get away with it. Well, they're not going to get away with it,” he said.

When asked to comment on the allegations, Graham's communication director told BNA in a May 9 e-mail, “Senator Graham has made it clear that if the NLRB is successful it will do damage to the South Carolina economy. ”

As for the complaint itself, Michalski told the delegates to let their representatives know that Boeing engaged in a “clear violation” of the National Labor Relations Act. What the company did amounted to “retribution and revenge” for workers' exercising their right to strike, he said. “There is no halfpregnant statement here. Either they are right or they are wrong, and in this case they are wrong,” he added.

By Lawrence E. Dubé and Michelle Amber @ BNA

Less Rhetoric and More of the Law in the NLRB's Boeing Action

Tue. May 10, 2011

The complaint that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued against the Boeing Company on April 20th has touched off a storm of comment and controversy, much of it wrong. We need to get past rhetoric and look at what the case is really about.

In every state in our nation, the law provides important protections for individual workers when they act together to improve their work lives for themselves and their families. The law also says that employers cannot retaliate against workers who engage in protected activities. If retaliation were permitted, there would be no protection.

For many years, Boeing employees in the State of Washington have worked through their union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, to improve their work lives at the company -- all while helping Boeing prosper by building the best commercial airliners in the world. Equally undisputed is that such activity was protected by law. So when Boeing itself announced that legally protected activities of its workers were the principal reason for moving a substantial portion of the company's 787 Dreamliner assembly to South Carolina, the company committed unlawful retaliation. The case is that simple.

Some commentators cry that the government is trying to tell a company where to put work. Boeing did not violate the law simply by moving 787 assembly. The violation was doing so in response to actions by its employees that the law protects. As the NLRB complaint states, "the relief requested by the Acting General Counsel does not seek to prohibit Respondent from making non-discriminatory decisions with respect to where work will be performed..."

Commentators also cry that this case is just a Democratic administration favoring labor. But the rights at stake in this case belong to workers in every state, regardless of their politics and even regardless of whether they are unionized. The NLRB is the law enforcement agency that is supposed to enforce the laws that Boeing broke. Do big companies not have to follow the rule of law?

Sadly, there are also commentators who are trying to recast the NLRB's complaint as pitting northern states against southern ones. Retaliation against workers for exercising protected rights is as unlawful in South Carolina as it is in Washington. The NLRB should enforce the law whenever and wherever retaliation against workers takes place.

We in the Machinists are proud to fight for our members at Boeing. We are just as proud to fight every day for our members who work in South Carolina and all across the South. We want Boeing and every other company that employs our members to prosper in the global economy, because that means jobs for our members and economic strength for America. But when any company violates legal protections for workers, the rule of law says there should be consequences.

Boeing's actions are properly before the NLRB, which should decide the case according to the law. The rhetoric should quiet down.

Read the OP-ED on Huffington Post.

Boeing Attacks NLRB Complaint

Tue. May 10, 2011

Employees at Boeing have always ensured the success of their employer. However, when Boeing made the decision to move production of the 787 Dreamliner to South Carolina they retaliated against their union represented employees in Washington State. This is a clear violation of federal labor law. Now, having to face the music, Boeing and its allies are attacking not only working families but also the law that protect them.

Facts and Misconceptions

This is a very simple case. It is undisputed that Boeing workers in State of Washington engaged in negotiations and other collective activity that the law protects. Boeing announced in the press that it was moving a substantial part of their assembly work on the company’s new 787 Dreamliner to South Carolina because of that activity. That constituted illegal retaliation, and that is what the NLRB complaint charged.
Boeing is not above the law. The NLRB is charged with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). It investigated the facts and the law thoroughly before issuing the complaint, and a hearing is scheduled. Let’s see what due process produces instead of trying this case in the press or on the floor of Congress.
Many company statements show that retaliation. The link below, while long, is Boeing CEO Jim Albaugh in an interview with the Seattle Times (3/2/2010), in which he clearly states the company’s retaliatory motive:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011237525_albaughvideo.html
Background Information

The National Labor Relations Act protects workers when they act together to improve their work lives for themselves and their families. It also prohibits employers from coercing, intimidating or retaliating against their workers who engage in protected rights. Often called the Wagner Act, it applies equally in all 50 states and has been the law of the land since 1935.

The next step is the NRLB to conduct a hearing before an administrative law judge, who will hear evidence in a hearing on the record. Boeing will have full opportunity to present its arguments on the facts and the law. Following the ALJ’s ruling, the losing party may appeal to the 5-member National Labor Relations Board and then to a U.S. Court of Appeals.